i don't remember, but did anyone even VOTE for tranmaw? she really is a hall of famer tard

Quote

Take, for example, this piece by David Anderson this morning: “So what is bad for the next generation may be good for our species in general.”

Try that reasoning with anything other than Darwinism and what do we get?

“So what is bad for the next generation may be good for our schools in general.”

“So what is bad for the next generation may be good for our country in general.”

When we evaluate the statement not against the fashionable counterfactual nonsense that Darwinists and Christian Darwinists urge us to accept but against a known reality, it is revealed for what it is – idiocy

tard like that and for free, those idiots should have charged admission to UD years ago

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

But as long as the grants are available and people don’t have enough information to ask the right questions … well, that is why Bill and I are writing the book. To empower, through information, Christians who don’t spend a lot of time at blogs like Uncommon Descent to resist the flood tide of nonsense (that only ever existed to promote atheism) as it starts to wash into their churches. – Denyse

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

The reason people are bored with old-fashioned approaches like reason and logic is most likely that those approaches tell us that the problem with us is us.

I thought it was because reason and logic aren't of much use without facts to work on. But then I don't post at UD...

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

There are over 200,000 words in that thread. and most of them are from tards since they can't leave the gloryhole UD to converse

Now, I didn't go to the TSZ thread and count how many words are in that thing. But if you are not causing the tards to write at least 7-10 words for every word you write you are wasting your fucking time.

ETA after all the one social beneft we can all agree upon is that when tards are busy flecking their monitor with rage spit and pounding their keyboard with hamfists, they have no time to erode the teaching of science. So, keep them busy and get over yourself queefsniffs

How's one voluntary leisure activity more a waste of time than any other? Anyone disinterested is free to scroll right on by. Get over your own self!

Edited by Soapy Sam on Oct. 02 2012,07:09

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

...Some thoughts: Gallup ignores Intelligent Design. How do we drag Gallup into the 21st century to differentiate those who believe that there is objective evidence for an intelligent designer, versus those accepting that God created mankind based on revelation (regardless of the age of the earth)?

How would you rephrase the questions for Gallup?

And when there's a stupid question, we know who we can rely on to give a stupid answer:

Quote

6 Joe October 1, 2012 at 5:27 am

How about:

1- Living organisms were designed and designed to evolve/ evolved by design, starting from single-celled organisms

2- Living organisms were designed and designed to evolve/ evolved by design, starting from some basic, albeit advanced, forms

I skimmed through her previous opus on the Spatulate Brain and you could tell just which lines were from her. She recycles her prose.

Meanwhile, she's making up for lost time on UD. The last ~3.59E+16 posts are from her. None of them are worth reading.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

In a new paper, the same lab tackles forming the simple, two- and three-atom sugars used in their earlier work (glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde). To get there, they started with nothing more complex than hydrogen cyanide, a simple molecule comprised of one atom each of hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Hydrogen cyanide forms readily under a variety of conditions, and has been found on several bodies in our Solar System, as well as in the interstellar medium.

The authors were intrigued by reports in the literature of a cycle that involves a set of six cyanide molecules, coordinated by two copper atoms. In a water solution, this complex can cycle, driven by ultraviolet light, through a set of reactions that alternately spit out cyanide, protons, and electrons. These electrons get temporarily attached to water molecules, and typically end up being taken up by a scavenger molecule, typically nitrate. However, some reports in the literature noted that, when nitrate isn't added to the reaction, some undefined larger molecules formed.

The authors went back and checked these reaction products, and found that they included both glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde—the two chemicals that were key building blocks of the reaction that produced the RNA precursor. And all the reaction required was copper ions and some UV light.

If left to continue cycling, the products of the reaction also included some more complex, five-atom ringed structures that incorporate nitrogen and oxygen in the ring. But the authors suspect that with the right conditions—namely the ones identified in the earlier paper—the products of this new cycle could be sent directly on to form cytosine. They also suggest the addition of other metals could shift the products to additional chemicals that may have biological relevance.

kairosfocus: On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad.

As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no.

Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:

Quote

Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.

No, actually. We suggested Origin of Species in the hopes people would read it. It was a bestseller in its day. A reasonable objection is that the text is dated, but it still makes a persuasive and readable argument, even a century and a half later. There are plenty of updated texts, both lay and specialist, that others have suggested.

Quote

kairosfocus: This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog.

Most of the people commenting or reading on Uncommon Descent have clearly not read Origin of Species, so there's no way to judge its impact.

As for providing an independent 6,000 word essay, we have been banned from Uncommon Descent for writing just such defences of evolutionary theory. — Furthermore, as Darwin considered 190,000 words just an abstract, then any 6,000 word essay can only be considered the beginnings of a discussion, not an all-encompassing argument.

Edited by Zachriel on Oct. 03 2012,07:41

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

kairosfocus: On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad.

As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no.

Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:

Quote

Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.

No, actually. We suggested Origin of Species in the hopes people would read it. It was a bestseller in its day. A reasonable objection is that the text is dated, but it still makes a persuasive and readable argument, even a century and a half later. There are plenty of updated texts, both lay and specialist, that others have suggested.

Quote

kairosfocus: This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog.

Most of the people commenting or reading on Uncommon Descent have clearly not read Origin of Species, so there's no way to judge its impact.

As for providing an independent 6,000 word essay, we have been banned from Uncommon Descent for writing just such defences of evolutionary theory.

I reckon I could write not just the essay, but a complete rebuttal thread in the voices of the main protagonists.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

In “Life after TED” (Financial Times September 29, 2012), April Dembosky. Ideas conferences have lost their spontaneity, says Richard Saul Wurman. His solution? A $16,000-a-ticket event featuring David Blaine [pianist], Herbie Hancock [stuntman] and 72 hours of ‘intellectual jazz’

Quote

5. Oldest galaxy ever detected?

From “Ultra-Distant Galaxy Discovered Amidst Cosmic ‘Dark Ages’: May Be Oldest Galaxy Ever” (Science Daily, September 19, 2012), we learn of the galaxy, found viagraviational lensing, that dates from 500 million years after the 13.7 mya Big Bang,

There appears to be a new strategy to thwart her ability to push all new posts off the home page after 24 hours - she's now posting 6 'news' items in one thread. More concentrated tard, I guess ...

[edited: to add 2nd stupid mistake from same post - missing a few zero's yet again. Someone tell her the difference between million and billion again, ... please]

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

(i)an intro,(ii) a thesis,(iii) a structure of exposition,(iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation [--> IBCE] test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past,(v) a discussion and from that(vi) a warranted conclusion.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Eric Anderson: We’re looking for what would be considered a scientific argument, not a rhetorical one. Darwin was a gifted rhetorician, I’ll grant that ...

Handwaving. Reposted from comment on Telic Thoughts:

Quote

I think you've got the wrong guy. Darwin sailed around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species in one of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.

Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms established his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his time without even mentioning Origin of Species.

* The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle * The Breeding of Animals * The structure and distribution of coral reefs. * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planaria; Lizard's eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc.

Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest scientists of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today.

Edited by Zachriel on Oct. 03 2012,13:42

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.